[PATCHv2 0/7] Add support for USB OTG on STM32F7

[Felipe Balbi]

Hi,

Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue at st.com> writes:
> Hi Felipe
>
> On 10/12/2017 10:43 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2017 12:04 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay at st.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>> The STM32F7 MCU family embeds two DWC2 USB OTG cores. One core is
>>>>>>>>>> USB
>>>>>>>>>> OTG FS and the other is USB OTG HS. The USB FS core only works
>>>>>>>>>> with its
>>>>>>>>>> internal phy whilst the USB HS core can work in HS with external
>>>>>>>>>> ULPI phy
>>>>>>>>>> or in FS/LS with the on-chip FS phy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Amelie Delaunay (7):
>>>>>>>>>>       dt-bindings: usb: Document the STM32F7 DWC2 USB OTG HS core
>>>>>>>>>> binding
>>>>>>>>>>       usb: dwc2: add support for STM32F7 USB OTG HS
>>>>>>>>>>       ARM: dts: stm32: Add USB HS support for STM32F746 MCU
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have applied these three patches. Should I take the rest? They
>>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>> like they could go upstream through the ARM maintainers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will take other DT patches in my PR.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Concerning "ARM: dts: stm32: Add USB HS support for STM32F746 MCU"
>>>>>>>> patch
>>>>>>>> I prefer also to take it. This patch adds some pinctrl groups but
>>>>>>>> stm32
>>>>>>>> pinctrl bindings will change in my next PR (we will use a macro to
>>>>>>>> define pins instead of using defined values). So if you push the DT
>>>>>>>> patch through your pull request there will be a merge issue.
>>>>>>>> It is possible that I take also this one ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In that case, it's best if you take them all :-) Here's my Ack:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Acked-by: Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi at linux.intel.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll drop them from my tree now
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok perfect, I will take DT patches (3 to 7) and I let you take patch 1&2
>>>>>> in your tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I have dropped them from my tree. Please two 1-7 through yours.
>>>>
>>>> Hum, ok for this patchset but IMO it is better (next time) that you take
>>>> driver pacthes in your tree and I take only DT patches in mine.
>>>> No ?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> I thought that patches 1 and 2, as they are "driver" patches, had to be
>>> applied on USB tree (so Felipe's one), and the others (3 to 7) had to be
>>> applied on STM32-DT tree (Alex's one). Did I miss something?
>> 
>> patch 1 is documentation, right? Without the documentation patch,
>> checkpatch will cringe :-) So either way works.
>> 
>> If you insist, I can take 1-2 through my tree. No worries.
>
> I don't want to insist :) but for me it is better (and more safe) if you 
> take patch 1&2 in your tree, and will take others in mine.

Okay, I'll apply 1&2

-- 
balbi